JB, Right, I am a user of both products also. I am still a heavy 5.x/Classic user but I also am still trying to get my project/team onto Artemis as well but migration is always slow. I'm also working quite heavily with Kafka now as well which has taken up a lot of my time and prevented me from having as much interaction with AMQ recently. Having a separate TLP does not stop anyone from contributing and using both projects but it does make things a lot easier I think in terms of naming, versioning, etc. I think it also just adds a lot more clarity for the users. Also, even as its own TLP, there is no reason why Artemis can't still have a goal to be feature compliant with ActiveMQ 5.x.
A pretty good example about how things are confusing right now is Artemis has been advertised as the next generation but there has been a lot of discussion recently about 5.x release cycles, upgrading the datastore, JMS 2.0 upgrades, etc. Basically it looks like it is still being actively development (which it is) so a user might be pretty confused about which broker to pick and what is going on long term. Anyways, I can only speak for myself so maybe most people still think the two projects should stay together under 1 umbrella. If I am in the minority and most people want to keep everything together that is fine. On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 11:15 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofre <j...@nanthrax.net> wrote: > Hi Chris, > > I’m sharing the same feeling and analyze. > > Even if I plan to work more on Artemis (first PR will happen soon ;)), the > current situation is what you describe: we have two communities. > > It’s not a bad thing IMHO, it happens in all projects, with time and > resulting of some decisions taken. > > Regards > JB > > > Le 19 mars 2021 à 16:02, Christopher Shannon < > christopher.l.shan...@gmail.com> a écrit : > > > > The real issue here is quite obvious and demonstrated over the last > several > > years and that is the goal isn't really agreed upon by everyone. Some > > people think the goal should be to make Artemis the next generation and > > others don't agree with that. > > > > Personally, while I still think having one broker to rally upon and make > > the best broker possible (Artemis) should be the goal, the realist in me > > does not believe this will ever happen without significant push back from > > the members of the community that do not want this to happen. > > > > Over the past couple of years my opinion has swayed now to simply making > > Artemis its own TLP. Even after 6 years we have 2 separate communities > > entirely. We basically have 2 independent projects with almost no overlap > > between developers and users so why not just make Artemis its own TLP? I > > really see no benefit of operating under the same umbrella anymore (I > guess > > maybe if you want to keep the branding) > > > > On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 10:57 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofre <j...@nanthrax.net > <mailto:j...@nanthrax.net>> > > wrote: > > > >> Hi, > >> > >> I understand the point. My main concern was in term of versioning (I > don’t > >> want to "block" ActiveMQ to do a 6, 7, 8 or whatever release). > >> > >> Sorry, but classic is something I don’t fully understand (maybe my > French > >> culture ;)). I don’t see what’s "classic" (or maybe in term of > "previous" > >> or "older") is. Maybe "vintage" (like classical music compare to house > >> music) ;) ? > >> > >> And, anyway, nobody is using "classic": for the users I know, they use > >> ActiveMQ and Artemis (not ActiveMQ Classic or ActiveMQ Artemis). > >> > >> So, if you agree to have: > >> > >> http://activemq.apache.org/artemis <http://activemq.apache.org/artemis> > <http://activemq.apache.org/artemis <http://activemq.apache.org/artemis>> > >> http://activemq.apache.org/activemq < > http://activemq.apache.org/activemq> <http://activemq.apache.org/activemq > <http://activemq.apache.org/activemq>> > >> > >> I think it’s even better than introducing a new name, I agree. > >> > >> Then, I’m changing the proposal/question: agree to use activemq and > >> Artemis on website ? > >> > >> Regards > >> JB > >> > >>> Le 19 mars 2021 à 15:48, Bruce Snyder <bruce.sny...@gmail.com <mailto: > bruce.sny...@gmail.com>> a écrit : > >>> > >>> Gary stated this well. I agree completely with all of his sentiments > >> here. > >>> > >>> I don't see the point to introducing yet another name as this will > muddy > >>> these waters even further, not clarify them. Artemis was meant to be a > >> code > >>> name until it matched ActiveMQ enough to be a drop-in replacement. I > >> don't > >>> believe that this goal has been achieved yet, has it? Is this still an > >>> active goal? > >>> > >>> Classic is an appropriate and deliberate name that was being discussed > as > >>> far back as just prior to the HornetQ donation. If we start officially > >>> referring to it as ActiveMQ Classic, then we need to explain the intent > >>> behind this name via the website. > >>> > >>> Agreed, the Classic stream needs a major version bump before those > >>> incompatible changes are introduced. Do this and move forward with > those > >>> incompatible changes. > >>> > >>> Bruce > >>> > >>> On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 8:29 AM Gary Tully <gary.tu...@gmail.com > <mailto:gary.tu...@gmail.com>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Hi JB, > >>>> I think "classic" is a good name precisely because of its meaning, it > >>>> reflects its value and is a good way to differentiate on the website. > >>>> > >>>> But I don't think the classic stream should be limited in versioning. > >>>> If for good reason (a new incompatible openwire version/storage > >>>> incompatible change/large config update) it needs a major version > >>>> increment, then go for it. > >>>> > >>>> Artemis was always intended as a code name, a generic title, a > >>>> temporary moniker, till it could take on the activemq mantle, but it > >>>> does not have to be 6, it can be 10 or 20, or it can be ActiveMQ > >>>> Artemis. > >>>> > >>>> I don't see any point in introducing another "brand" name, the > >>>> versioning will be sufficient if we want to consolidate on the > >>>> activemq name in the future, and the Artemis sub brand will be > >>>> sufficient if we don't. > >>>> > >>>> to speak to Lucas, the plan for Artemis is to be be a better ActiveMQ > >>>> > >>>> kind regards, > >>>> gary. > >>>> > >>>> On Fri, 19 Mar 2021 at 04:49, Jean-Baptiste Onofre <j...@nanthrax.net > <mailto:j...@nanthrax.net>> > >>>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Hi, > >>>>> > >>>>> Like any Apache (and OpenSource) project, ActiveMQ "umbrella" project > >> is > >>>> living and roadmap evolves. > >>>>> > >>>>> Justin is right with the project history, but I think the initial > >> target > >>>> to "replace" ActiveMQ with Artemis evolves, due to the users. > >>>>> > >>>>> Personally, I’m saying still lot of ActiveMQ users, not planning to > >>>> change to Artemis, and even brand new installation starts with > ActiveMQ > >>>> (not Artemis). > >>>>> Furthermore, in term of features, there are some gaps between > ActiveMQ > >>>> and Artemis IMHO. > >>>>> > >>>>> I think the mistake was to create a separated repo for Artemis: if > >>>> Artemis was ActiveMQ "master" branch at the time of the donation, > then, > >> the > >>>> update would be straight forward. > >>>>> > >>>>> So, clearly, IMHO, we have two completed separated projects between > >>>> ActiveMQ and Artemis, because the communities (both users and > >> contributors) > >>>> are not the same. > >>>>> > >>>>> A possible path to that Artemis become Apache TLP (and so ActiveMQ > >>>> Artemis name), and ActiveMQ "classic" stays what he’s: Apache > ActiveMQ. > >>>>> > >>>>> If the PMC don’t want to "move" as a TLP, then we should at least > give > >>>> space for the two subprojects in the ActiveMQ umbrella and clearly > >> identify > >>>> who is what. > >>>>> > >>>>> Regards > >>>>> JB > >>>>> > >>>>>> Le 19 mars 2021 à 05:13, Tetreault, Lucas > <tetlu...@amazon.com.INVALID <mailto:tetlu...@amazon.com.INVALID> > >>> > >>>> a écrit : > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Hey Justin, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Thanks for the additional context. As a newcomer, it seems to me > like > >>>> both ActiveMQ "Classic" and Artemis are alive and well. 6 years and 2 > >> major > >>>> versions in to development, is the goal and focus for Artemis still on > >>>> feature parity and becoming ActiveMQ 6? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Thanks, > >>>>>> Lucas > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On 2021-03-18, 8:38 PM, "Justin Bertram" <jbert...@apache.org > <mailto:jbert...@apache.org>> > >> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do > >>>> not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender > >> and > >>>> know the content is safe. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Lucas, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I'm not sure you've been around the ActiveMQ community for very > >>>> long or > >>>>>> maybe you have been and forgot some of the history. In any case, > >>>> I'll > >>>>>> summarize briefly. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Over a decade ago Hiram Chirino, one of the original ActiveMQ > >>>> developers > >>>>>> and chair of the ActiveMQ PMC at the time, created a new broker > >>>> under the > >>>>>> ActiveMQ banner named Apollo. It was designed on a non-blocking > >>>>>> architecture for much better performance than the existing ActiveMQ > >>>>>> architecture [1]. After ActiveMQ Apollo 1.0 was released the stated > >>>> goal of > >>>>>> this project was for it to eventually be integrated with the > >>>> mainline > >>>>>> ActiveMQ code-base and serve as its replacement [2]. This fact was > >>>>>> advertised on the ActiveMQ website although there are no longer any > >>>>>> references to that since the website was redesigned & updated a > >>>> year or so > >>>>>> ago. For whatever reason Apollo never acquired the critical mass > >>>> necessary > >>>>>> to replace mainline ActiveMQ. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Then about 6 years ago the HornetQ code-base was donated to the > >>>> ActiveMQ > >>>>>> community and that donation was accepted with the goal of creating > >>>> the next > >>>>>> generation ActiveMQ broker that would eventually become version 6. > >>>> Since > >>>>>> that time work has steadily progressed on the Artemis code-base to > >>>> bring > >>>>>> sufficient feature parity with mainline ActiveMQ to allow users to > >>>>>> transition. Again, this has been communicated via the website and > >>>> other > >>>>>> support channels for the last several years. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> For what it's worth, I hope that clarifies the current state of > >>>> affairs. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Justin > >>>>>> > >>>>>> [1] > >>>>>> > >>>> > >> > https://hiramchirino.com/blog/2011/01/17/activemq-apollo-looking-impressive/ > < > https://hiramchirino.com/blog/2011/01/17/activemq-apollo-looking-impressive/ > > > >>>>>> [2] > >>>> https://hiramchirino.com/blog/2012/02/03/apache-apollo-1-0-released/ > <https://hiramchirino.com/blog/2012/02/03/apache-apollo-1-0-released/> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 5:02 PM Tetreault, Lucas > >>>>>> <tetlu...@amazon.com.invalid <mailto:tetlu...@amazon.com.invalid>> > wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Hi all, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> It seems to me like the core problem here is that there are two > >>>> distinct > >>>>>>> projects operating under one brand and it creates confusion. I > agree > >>>> with > >>>>>>> JB that the "ActiveMQ Classic" and "ActiveMQ 5" branding are not > >>>> ideal. > >>>>>>> However, I think that renaming it to ActiveMQ Leto will further > >>>> dilute the > >>>>>>> ActiveMQ brand and create more confusion for users. Why not just > >>>> "ActiveMQ" > >>>>>>> and "Artemis"? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Thanks, > >>>>>>> Lucas > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On 2021-03-18, 6:54 AM, "Jean-Baptiste Onofre" <j...@nanthrax.net > <mailto:j...@nanthrax.net>> > >>>> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. > Do > >>>>>>> not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the > sender > >>>> and > >>>>>>> know the content is safe. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Hi Justin, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I would rather to ActiveMQ Leto 5.17.0 (and then Leto 6.0 at some > >>>>>>> point). > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Regards > >>>>>>> JB > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Le 18 mars 2021 à 14:51, Justin Bertram <jbert...@apache.org > <mailto:jbert...@apache.org>> a > >>>>>>> écrit : > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I'm not clear on the versioning you're proposing. Are you saying > >>>>>>> that the > >>>>>>>> first release of this subproject would be ActiveMQ Leto 1.0? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Justin > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 7:46 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofre < > >>>>>>> j...@nanthrax.net <mailto:j...@nanthrax.net>> > >>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Hi Robbie, > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> My point is about "classic". I understand the meaning but I think > >>>>>>> it’s not > >>>>>>>>> a good "tagging". > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I don’t want to focus on ActiveMQ 5.x, because it prevents us to > >> use > >>>>>>>>> another versioning. > >>>>>>>>> Why not ActiveMQ 6.0 that would be a new major ActiveMQ release. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> To summarize: > >>>>>>>>> 1. ActiveMQ 5.x is too restrictive for versioning > >>>>>>>>> 2. Classic is not a good "naming/tagging". > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> That’s why I’m proposing a new identified name. It means we would > >>>>>>> have: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> - Apache ActiveMQ Artemis > >>>>>>>>> - Apache ActiveMQ Leto > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> IMHO, it’s two subprojects under the same "umbrella" (like we > have > >>>>>>> Camel > >>>>>>>>> K, Camel Spring Boot, Camel Karaf, or Karaf runtime, Karaf > >>>>>>> Decanter, Karaf > >>>>>>>>> Cave, etc). > >>>>>>>>> Each subproject deserves a clear naming. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> About the website, you got my point: I would like to get all wiki > >>>>>>> based > >>>>>>>>> resources, update and clean it to push on a dedicated sub context > >>>>>>> of the > >>>>>>>>> website: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> http://activemq.apache.org/artemis < > >>>>>>> http://activemq.apache.org/artemis> > >>>>>>>>> http://activemq.apache.org/leto <http://activemq.apache.org/leto > > > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Each with its own announcement, download, documentation > resources. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Regards > >>>>>>>>> JB > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Le 18 mars 2021 à 12:19, Robbie Gemmell < > robbie.gemm...@gmail.com > >>> > >>>>>>> a > >>>>>>>>> écrit : > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> The 'classic' terminology on the homepage is used more as a > >>>>>>>>>> description rather than a name to me, speaking to its quality > and > >>>>>>>>>> vintage and in some small straightforward way. ActiveMQ 5 is > still > >>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>> way the broker is referenced on the site as a whole so far as I > >>>>>>> see, > >>>>>>>>>> rather than ActiveMQ Classic. Essentially everywhere besides the > >>>>>>>>>> subdir name being 'classic' in the URL for grouping some of the > >>>>>>> newest > >>>>>>>>>> component pages. I dont think 'Leto' is particularly more useful > >>>>>>> than > >>>>>>>>>> 'classic' as a description, and especially not an improvement > for > >>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>> subdir in the URL at this point. It would be quite the opposite > >>>>>>> for me > >>>>>>>>>> personally, I think it would be a bad idea. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Changing the subdir on the site from 'classic' to something else > >>>>>>>>>> simplistic and direct such as 5 or 5x or 5.x? Sure, I can see > >> that. > >>>>>>>>>> Dropping the "Classic" description suffix from the central box > on > >>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>> homepage, leaving only the ActiveMQ 5 titling? By all means. > Leto? > >>>>>>> I > >>>>>>>>>> dont really see that being an improvement at this point at all. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> On your other proposal of cleaning up mess, presumably that > means > >>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>> mass of old 5.x wiki-derived pages on the site in the root (done > >> to > >>>>>>>>>> preserve URLs during the site changeover I believe, over > >>>>>>>>>> individual-page redirects) that are rarely ever touched, and > >> moving > >>>>>>>>>> such content into the subdir? Sounds great. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Robbie > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 18 Mar 2021 at 08:30, Jean-Baptiste Onofre < > >>>>>>> j...@nanthrax.net> > >>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Hi guys, > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> I would like to bring on the table the naming of Apache > ActiveMQ. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> I think "Classic" is not a good name, and it doesn’t mean > >>>>>>> anything. I > >>>>>>>>> think it would make more sense to have a generic name. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> As we have Apache ActiveMQ Artemis, I would like to propose > >> Apache > >>>>>>>>> ActiveMQ Leto. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> From a cultural standpoint ;), Artemis is the Greek goddess of > >> the > >>>>>>>>> hunt, the wilderness, wild animals, the Moon, and chastity. > Artemis > >>>>>>> is the > >>>>>>>>> daughter of Zeus and Leto, and the twin sister of Apollo. > >>>>>>>>>>> As "ActiveMQ Classic" is "older" than Artemis, I propose to > >>>>>>> rename as > >>>>>>>>> Apache ActiveMQ Leto. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> This name change won’t impact the code repository, it’s more > for > >>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>> website. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Related to that proposal, I would like to propose also to > create > >> a > >>>>>>>>> dedicated space for Leto: http://activemq.apache.org/leto < > >>>>>>>>> http://activemq.apache.org/leto> with a complete cleanup of the > >>>>>>> mess we > >>>>>>>>> have today (documentation, download page, announcements, etc). > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Thoughts ? > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Regards > >>>>>>>>>>> JB > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> perl -e 'print > >>> unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*" > );' > >>> http://bsnyder.org/ <http://bruceblog.org/> > >
